Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

xp2700+ will use 166mhz FSB

Tags:
Last response: in CPUs
Share
September 25, 2002 1:30:22 PM

dont' know if eveyone have heard, but the upcoming XP2700+ will have 166mhz FSB sweeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeet :p 

http://www.pcpop.com.cn/view.asp?type=news&id=7973
http://www.hardtecs4u.com/reviews/2002/fsb_166/

heard it'll be out by around the 7th next month

More about : xp2700 166mhz fsb

September 25, 2002 2:03:09 PM

Already heard it, but waiting for Barton. No hurry right now, my Tbird 1.2 is doing well enough, so I'm cashing my earnings.

DIY: read, buy, test, learn, reward yourself!
September 25, 2002 5:30:48 PM

so what is the latest speculation of when the barton can be in my sweaty little mits?

*** :cool: Duff Man says a lot of things, OH YEAH!!! :cool: ***
Related resources
September 26, 2002 2:16:54 AM

is the clawhammer going to be socket A?

*** :cool: Duff Man says a lot of things, OH YEAH!!! :cool: ***
September 26, 2002 2:37:08 AM

'course not.

Everyone has to know, Hammer is a TOTALLY new platform, nothing compatible with old hardware when intending to upgrade Socket A equipment, simply put.

--
What made you choose your THG Community username/nickname? <A HREF="http://forumz.tomshardware.com/community/modules.php?na..." target="_new">Tell here!</A>
September 26, 2002 3:54:01 AM

yer, barton is more exciting than 166fsb tbreds.
allthough its nice to see finally a departure from 133 bus speeds.

<b>"True communication is possible only between equals, because inferiors are consistently rewarded for telling their superiors pleasant lies than for telling the truth."</b>
September 26, 2002 4:43:19 AM

heheheh looks like i'm very behind on this topic.
September 26, 2002 6:16:05 AM

not really. things are going slow, despite the constant rumors.
barton = 166fsb tbred with 512k cache.

<b>"True communication is possible only between equals, because inferiors are consistently rewarded for telling their superiors pleasant lies than for telling the truth."</b>
September 26, 2002 7:53:23 AM

And no SOI :-(

DIY: read, buy, test, learn, reward yourself!
September 26, 2002 8:06:05 AM

Out of curiosity, will it be possible to run a Barton on an older AthlonXP motherboard, with a chipset designed to run at 133 MHz - in effect undeclocking the chip?

Will there be a performance advantage over a Thoroughbred at the same FSB due to the larger cache? I suppose it will mean that the CPU will not be the limitiing factor when overclocking at least.

Campbell...
September 26, 2002 12:03:31 PM

sure, but it will be a terrible waste of 25% of the performance... much like running your XP at 100fsb.

as for current motherboads, many on the market now are essentially 166fsb ready due to good overclocking...
so long as they are stable at 166fsb and have the 1/5 pci divider they should work.
so most kt333 boards should work, as will some of the sis 735/745 boards.

and if your wondering about the effects of cache, compare a duron and a xp running at the same speed, or the willie 256k to the northwood 512k. more cache means more efficiency.


<b>"True communication is possible only between equals, because inferiors are consistently rewarded for telling their superiors pleasant lies than for telling the truth."</b>
September 26, 2002 1:51:55 PM

if the chip is rated for 166fsb how is it ocing? confused....

*** :cool: Duff Man says a lot of things, OH YEAH!!! :cool: ***
September 26, 2002 2:01:07 PM

if there are bios update for this

At the end i have speak with a horny lady
September 26, 2002 5:18:50 PM

He's referring to overclocking the motherboards to meet the FSB capability of the CPU.

In a nutshell, if you have a motherboard that's only 133bus speed then your 166 bus speed cpu will only run at 133 bus speed, thereby noticeably decreasing optimal performance.

If you have a motherboard that supports 166fsb, but a CPU that only support 133, again, you lose some performance. What you need is a motherboard AND a CPU that BOTH support 166 in order to achieve optimal performance.

Mark-

<font color=blue>When all else fails, throw your computer out the window!!!</font color=blue>
September 26, 2002 11:26:09 PM

im talking about the board.
current motherboards dont OFFICIALLY support the 166 system bus speed, allthough thanx to overclockers and our demand many will do 166 easily, but not all.

<b>"True communication is possible only between equals, because inferiors are consistently rewarded for telling their superiors pleasant lies than for telling the truth."</b>
September 27, 2002 12:02:16 AM

http://www.hardtecs4u.com/reviews/2002/fsb_166/
here what it says

Babel Fish Translation, In English:


Intro No question, for which Athlon XP with 166 MHz FSB stands before the door and will in Baelde are introduced. Naturally the question, which will bring this at increased output by the increased range of the processor with itself, is quite interesting, but not the decisive point, why we with this topic to have been concerned. The Overclocker fan municipality concerns itself practically already quite a while with the topic 133 MHz to 166 MHz FrontSideBus and many operates AMD processors within the range of this FSB. for one while circulates rumors in the Web that with some plates a "nose" would be present, why hardly considerable increases in output are to be registered with the rise of the FSB to 166 MHz. Only recently also my colleague novel Fischer in the report of the EPoX Ep-8kä2+ had itself to surprise vs. Chaintech 7VJL Apogee at it. These points, and feedbacks of various users caused us to regard us some plates in this connection once more near.

We would like to however already point out in the apron that the later following results in the long run no guarantor for the achievement of the coming new AMD processors can be, because in the long run are present us no such CCU. We made only a over clocking procedure of an at present usual AMD CCU with specified FSB of 133 MHz. How BIOS versions of Motherboards will possibly develop themselves further during introduction of a AMD Athlon XP 2700+ still and whether it applies to consider still appropriate defaults on the part of AMD or the chip sentence manufacturers, remains being waiting definitely.

Ranges Already one while appears with present AMD processors of the FrontSideBus as new bottle neck in the system. The past models with a specified FSB of 133 MHz (266 MHz GDR) make a maximum processor range possible of 2.1 GB/s after the following computation: 133 MHz * 64 bits * 2 packets per clock = 17024 Mill. Bit/s = 2128 Mill. Byte/s Practically according to the identical formula however also the computation of the memory range behaves, so that one likewise receives memory module here with a DDR266 (PC2100) a maximum range from 2,1 GB/s. Thus one would have the most optimal basis between processor and memory range in the theory. And evenly also in the theory an at present current AMD Athlon XP processor might not profit to memory with a range from a DDR333 (PC2700) from 2,7 GB/s. This however only in the theory, because in practice showed up that the VIA KT333 chip set with support for the DDR333 storing and pool of broadcasting corporations the AMD processors again to approx.. 5 % increased output to draw could do. Why this presents itself in such a way in practice, we described in our Speicherroundup

"most optimal conditions with memory accesses presupposed, one reaches module 2100 MB/s memory range in a theoretical view for example with a PC2100 GDR sdram. Optimally in this connection means however all operational sequence in smooth interaction, described before, (PAGE hit, Burst length, bank Interleaving, etc.). In the best case one reaches its in practice however only 95%, thus approx.. 2000 MB/s memory throughput, which to reaching end of page the field of a memory cell or the PAGE Size limitation to due is. As in a book, it is not possible also in sides of a memory cell to read infinitely without Umzublaettern. This sheet procedure always costs a certain time, until one can read on. Evenly those 5% maximally are it, the AMD processor based platforms á la VIA KT333 with 133 MHz GDR FSB by the employment of DDR333 (PC2700) memory modules with 166 MHz GDR storing act straight still for itself to work out can - one considers that the processor evenly possesses also only a maximum range of 2.1 GB/s. Here thus the FrontSideBus represents a new bottle neck."

If we proceed now from a rise of the FrontSideBus on 166 MHz, then shown calculation formula the range of the CPUs on maximally 2.7 GB/s increases upward, and already identical environments may be expected once fundamentally presupposed in the theory that in connection with DDR333 memory a performance increase should result here. Thus an increase of the FSB is a quite welcoming point on the part of AMD.

all I did was use the translator and coppyed and pasted http://babelfish.altavista.com/tr
September 27, 2002 12:08:21 AM

I talk to my friends to the east and see if they can help me. On the other page.
September 27, 2002 12:13:41 AM

yaa, 166fsb is a nice addition, but its not the magic cure for all AMD's woes.

just 5-10% better performance for memory hungry applications.
ive seen the results first hand when i overclocked my unlocked tbird on this epox 8k3a+.
seems the K7 processor architecture allready uses the bus bandwidth most effectivly, and the bottlenecks lie elsewhere.

<b>"True communication is possible only between equals, because inferiors are consistently rewarded for telling their superiors pleasant lies than for telling the truth."</b>
September 27, 2002 2:11:07 AM

"current motherboards dont OFFICIALLY support the 166 system bus speed, allthough thanx to overclockers and our demand many will do 166 easily, but not all."

would an a7v333 be one of these boards?

*** :cool: Duff Man says a lot of things, OH YEAH!!! :cool: ***
September 27, 2002 2:20:30 AM

I beleive that's because 600 more MBs is nothing. We need DDR 400+ 400MHZ FSB for AthlonXPs to see some NOTICEABLE difference.

--
What made you choose your THG Community username/nickname? <A HREF="http://forumz.tomshardware.com/community/modules.php?na..." target="_new">Tell here!</A>
September 27, 2002 4:39:52 AM

yes it would.

IF it does run at 166fsb thats great, but if it doesnt u cant complain cauz 166fsb aint official :smile:


<b>I am an Emotional and Intellectual Strumpet! :cool: </b>
!